Has Peat Written About Trans-genderism ?

[damngoodcoffee]

Here is a woman:
Here is a man:

 

[Herbie]

Feminine - Lisa Welch Playboy.

Masculine - Brook Shields Model and Actor.

 

[Such_Saturation]

That's pretty feminine

 

[damngoodcoffee]

That's pretty feminine

Maybe that's why i have a man crush on him.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Maybe that's why i have a man crush on him.

I suppose you dislike the new 007 movies

 

[damngoodcoffee]

I suppose you dislike the new 007 movies

No, I think even the last 007 movie, made in 2002 was nice.

 

[sladerunner69]

The sons look gay.

That indian savage sure rememberred to take his high dose k2 everyday. Very wide face indeed!

 

[FredSonoma]

Society hasn't developed the ideals of masculinity and femininity, evolution did. The further you are from the masculine/feminine ideal, the worse you will be at hunting/familial defense/caring/etc. Leading to my point about pair bonding. Female and masculine traits appear complementary because they are. 'Sluthating' will never disappear because it makes sense to shame sluts. Human babies are born into complete dependence on their parents. In order to give your lineage the best chance of survival in the best state it can be, you need a complementary pair bonded male and female couple.

I like that you try to say that people who believe this have swallowed some wholesale philosophy from somebody else. The only problem with saying that is that a very liberal philosophy hedged on the ol' adage of 'WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!' is THE easiest viewpoint to have. No thought whatsoever is required to take this stance -- you don't have to worry about the reality of human nature.

I almost exactly agree with all of this

 

[Morgan]

Your post is insane.

The fact that intersex people have supposedly spanned back through history isn't really the point. The point is that environmental and cultural pollution (read: tumblr, MSM, basically everything) has seemingly lead to an increase in biological malfunctions (chromosomal sex defects, hormonal changes, mental illness, mental illness fetishes).

Society hasn't developed the ideals of masculinity and femininity, evolution did. The further you are from the masculine/feminine ideal, the worse you will be at hunting/familial defense/caring/etc. Leading to my point about pair bonding. Female and masculine traits appear complementary because they are. 'Sluthating' will never disappear because it makes sense to shame sluts. Human babies are born into complete dependence on their parents. In order to give your lineage the best chance of survival in the best state it can be, you need a complementary pair bonded male and female couple.

I like that you try to say that people who believe this have swallowed some wholesale philosophy from somebody else. The only problem with saying that is that a very liberal philosophy hedged on the ol' adage of 'WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!' is THE easiest viewpoint to have. No thought whatsoever is required to take this stance -- you don't have to worry about the reality of human nature.

The fact that intersex people have spanned back through history is a very important point, and some cultures embraced it as something uniquely beautiful; even the aspect of welcoming something different from yourself is a positive sign within society. Environmental pollution is absolutely a concern though, both naturally occurring, and man made.. as for cultural pollution.. that has existed in some form since the start of human civilization, and I find it genuinely difficult to have pride in any moment of our history, if only just briefly. We haven't been doing it right.. we hardly do anything right, and perhaps how we treat gender is something to be keenly observed. I think there has to be a reason as to why men have a higher suicide rate, lower life expectancy, lower higher education enrollment, and in a way has been treated as expendable throughout history.. and the spirit of that which permeates or culture today is not conductive towards a more ideal society.

In a biological sense, evolution developed the ideals of masculinity and femininity; but this has been different to how we use these terms within culture, they remain as just concepts. So, what is the masculine/feminine ideal? It seems to be different for every generation, and it even seems to be different to every person.. You mentioned hunting, well, what is the ideal hunter? Lean, fast, high endurance, and good spatial awareness.. none of that is incompatible with what culture sometimes describes as "feminine" beauty. So, maybe it's best to reserve the terms of masculine and feminine to biological understanding, like endocrine or sexual health.

"the reality of human nature" - What is human nature? what is even natural? Everything that we have done as a species is in conquering nature.. we started that when we harnessed fire, and every potentially beneficial advancement we make is in overcoming a "natural" problem. Nature is basically our only enemy, born into this world hungry and thirsty not knowing what to deal with first.. So, if it's nature that disallows us to get along.. then we shall overcome that too.

 

[mangoes]

Your post is insane.

The fact that intersex people have supposedly spanned back through history isn't really the point. The point is that environmental and cultural pollution (read: tumblr, MSM, basically everything) has seemingly lead to an increase in biological malfunctions (chromosomal sex defects, hormonal changes, mental illness, mental illness fetishes).

Society hasn't developed the ideals of masculinity and femininity, evolution did. The further you are from the masculine/feminine ideal, the worse you will be at hunting/familial defense/caring/etc. Leading to my point about pair bonding. Female and masculine traits appear complementary because they are. 'Sluthating' will never disappear because it makes sense to shame sluts. Human babies are born into complete dependence on their parents. In order to give your lineage the best chance of survival in the best state it can be, you need a complementary pair bonded male and female couple.

I like that you try to say that people who believe this have swallowed some wholesale philosophy from somebody else. The only problem with saying that is that a very liberal philosophy hedged on the ol' adage of 'WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!' is THE easiest viewpoint to have. No thought whatsoever is required to take this stance -- you don't have to worry about the reality of human nature.

I don't have time to address this as fully as I'd like right now. However I'll say that the point about intersex people spanning throughout our existence discredits the assumption that introduction of cultural and environmental pollution is the cause of intersexism. I said in my post obviously hormones and the like have an effect, isn't that what Peat teaches? Epigenetics? But to reduce a wide spectrum of gender identity to purely environmental/pollutive causes is exactly that: reductionist. There's talk in this thread about how our generation has gone crazy and whatever, when all along throughout our history of evolution, things that have at some point been considered taboo by some, homosexuality, transgenderism, race, gender, even pedophilia, have been present. You can say it has seemingly increased but no I really doubt it lol.

The problem is worsened when people who, yes, live up to unrealistic ideals, see through their lens of dogma, attributing everything to said dogma. I won't address what you said about sluts needing to be shamed because your statement speaks enough for itself. It takes more of a man (or woman) to be able to accept reality as the way it is, than to project his perception of what reality is or should be onto other people.

It's clear from pretty much every example picture of the genders on this thread, really the diversity between male and female characteristics in one gender. Most people just don't conform to these traits of purely feminine or masculine.

However, I'm not averse to learning, or admitting when I'm wrong, so your argument that because a man and a woman pair are needed to create a baby, that this is where ideals of macho masculine and super feminine have come from?

As for the last part of your post, you say that the ol' adage is the easiest viewpoint to take because, what? it doesn't have to be insulting to different types of people? Basically telling them that they're abnormal, biologically mutant because they're not the same as me or someone else? No I think it's easier to insult people by means of intellectual "reasoning", and compel and project your views on others, rather than trying to take an objective view, personally.

Yet, people with your view are able to see the reality of human nature, even though you're ignoring certain aspects, or calling it "malfunctions" which don't coincide with your view?

View attachment 4783 Feminine - Lisa Welch Playboy.

View attachment 4782 Masculine - Brook Shields Model and Actor.

Isn't it unfair to use a picture of a woman who is clearly a lot younger in the above picture?

Brook Shields when she was young:

A lot more feminine to my eyes.

 

[mangoes]

The fact that intersex people have spanned back through history is a very important point, and some cultures embraced it as something uniquely beautiful; even the aspect of welcoming something different from yourself is a positive sign within society. Environmental pollution is absolutely a concern though, both naturally occurring, and man made.. as for cultural pollution.. that has existed in some form since the start of human civilization, and I find it genuinely difficult to have pride in any moment of our history, if only just briefly. We haven't been doing it right.. we hardly do anything right, and perhaps how we treat gender is something to be keenly observed. I think there has to be a reason as to why men have a higher suicide rate, lower life expectancy, lower higher education enrollment, and in a way has been treated as expendable throughout history.. and the spirit of that which permeates or culture today is not conductive towards a more ideal society.

In a biological sense, evolution developed the ideals of masculinity and femininity; but this has been different to how we use these terms within culture, they remain as just concepts. So, what is the masculine/feminine ideal? It seems to be different for every generation, and it even seems to be different to every person.. You mentioned hunting, well, what is the ideal hunter? Lean, fast, high endurance, and good spatial awareness.. none of that is incompatible with what culture sometimes describes as "feminine" beauty. So, maybe it's best to reserve the terms of masculine and feminine to biological understanding, like endocrine or sexual health.

"the reality of human nature" - What is human nature? what is even natural? Everything that we have done as a species is in conquering nature.. we started that when we harnessed fire, and every potentially beneficial advancement we make is in overcoming a "natural" problem. Nature is basically our only enemy, born into this world hungry and thirsty not knowing what to deal with first.. So, if it's nature that disallows us to get along.. then we shall overcome that too.

This.

Even better than my post lol.

 

[paka]

As to what a man should look like... Males respect other males who have "heavy" / large sized chins because it's masculine and dominant (more T makes the bones bigger), they have little/no respect for people with "weak" or small chins... because small bones are feminine. It's animal-like behavior. People will viciously disrespect feminine behavior / appearance in males so they somehow get more masculine (larger chin, deeper voice, alter their personality or behavior to be tougher...

 

[x-ray peat]

However I'll say that the point about intersex people spanning throughout our existence discredits the assumption that introduction of cultural and environmental pollution is the cause of intersexism. I said in my post obviously hormones and the like have an effect, isn't that what Peat teaches? Epigenetics? But to reduce a wide spectrum of gender identity to purely environmental/pollutive causes is exactly that: reductionist. There's talk in this thread about how our generation has gone crazy and whatever, when all along throughout our history of evolution, things that have at some point been considered taboo by some, homosexuality, transgenderism, race, gender, even pedophilia, have been present. You can say it has seemingly increased but no I really doubt it lol.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/31/millennials-are-the-gayest-generation.html
Denying that there is an increase in the prevalence of homosexuality in western societies is delusional. All the studies and surveys say the same thing. Now why this is happening should be open for debate and not immediately shot down as being homophobic or intolerant.

 

[mangoes]

I'm not shooting anything down to stop discussion and calling homophobia. In fact I'm doing the opposite by saying don't be reductionist.

I've not once stated that there aren't biological aspects to sexuality, or the main topic of discussion here being gender identity.

There's no consideration however, that the reason there are suddenly "more gays about" isn't purely because of a change of biology but a change in culture, allowing more people to comfortably (and safely) come out as homosexual.

This is what my whole point is in that sexuality and gender differences have been alive as long as we (humans) have been alive.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Nature is basically our only enemy

Bit worrying

 

[Amazoniac]

Speaking of nature being the enemy and saturation, from Generative Energy, Such a refreshing message:
"Being alive is good for you. But our culture is saturated with arguments to the contrary--that it is life which kills us, and self-denial which sustains us. It is always easier to blame the victim than to search for the real cause of a problem."

 

[Makrosky]

Millennials Are the Gayest Generation
Denying that there is an increase in the prevalence of homosexuality in western societies is delusional. All the studies and surveys say the same thing. Now why this is happening should be open for debate and not immediately shot down as being homophobic or intolerant.

The thing is most of the debates think it's somehow a deviation of the norm. What if it's the opposite, it is now how it should be and before was a deviation (high percentage of lgtb people in the closet?).

And how can you measure the number of LGTB people before the last 50 years ? They were hiding. It is still death penalty in some countries.

More important : What hides behind the obsession to find why there's so many LGTB people now ? Maybe the idea that it's bad ? I really don't think most of the debates are clean of prejudices and political/religious/ideological biases.

Is there the same zeal for finding out if there are more blonde people ? Or people with wider bones ? Or anything, really...

No matter what we can discuss about hormones it should be extremely obvious that if in the last 50 years the laws of most modern countries have stopped criminalizing, jailing, killing, etc. LGTB people there is gonna be more of them.

Just to make it clear : yes I think hormones and neurotransmitters affect sexual behaviour/orientation but just as they affect basically everything ?

 

[x-ray peat]

I'm not shooting anything down to stop discussion and calling homophobia. In fact I'm doing the opposite by saying don't be reductionist.

Not as clearly in that last post but you certainly did earlier.

I've noticed that the people with problems against transgender people are generally the repressed, depressed "alpha male" wanna be types who frequent sites like sluthate (which might I add is full of transgender porn. Hmm).

I'm surprised that in a forum which is dedicated to a man who seems to eschew every kind of dogma, lately is full of people who buy into dogma, and are unable to really formulate a thought of their own, simply regurgitating their esteemed "red pill" knowledge.

 

[x-ray peat]

The thing is most of the debates think it's somehow a deviation of the norm. What if it's the opposite, it is now how it should be and before was a deviation (high percentage of lgtb people in the closet?).
And how can you measure the number of LGTB people before the last 50 years ? They were hiding. It is still death penalty in some countries.
More important : What hides behind the obsession to find why there's so many LGTB people now ? Maybe the idea that it's bad ? I really don't think most of the debates are clean of prejudices and political/religious/ideological biases.
Is there the same zeal for finding out if there are more blonde people ? Or people with wider bones ? Or anything, really...

No matter what we can discuss about hormones it should be extremely obvious that if in the last 50 years the laws of most modern countries have stopped criminalizing, jailing, killing, etc. LGTB people there is gonna be more of them.

Just to make it clear : yes I think hormones and neurotransmitters affect sexual behaviour/orientation but just as they affect basically everything ?

Accusing someone of bigotry is often used by progressives to shut down debate on subjects that they don’t like. I assure you that I have no “obsession to find why there's so many LGTB people now” nor am I motivated by my “prejudices and political/religious/ideological biases.”

Saying that there is no increase in non-heteros in the West or that if there was it is due primarily to cultural artifacts is just another method used to shut down the discussion. That is purely your opinion with no evidence to back it up. The poll I posted showed a doubling of non-hetero rates in the US in just one generation. Being part of Generation X, I can assure you that we were not persecuting Gays like you may think. I agree that cultural acceptance is part of it but I doubt that the 100% increase can be explained fully by people watching too much Modern Family.

My only concern is that the dramatic increase could be a signal that something else is going and it needs to be better understood. I for one think that a big part of this can be attributed to the large increase in xenoestrogens in the environment, our food, clothing, and elsewhere. This has much larger implications for our world than just the number of non-hetero millennials and should concern us all. Obviously there are many factors involved but to ignore this massive change to the environment and think it can all be explained by increased cultural acceptance is what can really be called reductionist thinking.

 

[Pointless]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.raws...lt-for-reasons-every-woman-can-relate-to/amp/

I wonder what Ray Peat thinks about robosexuality?